aiming

Patrick Johnson said:
Actually, I said it's a fantasy to think "there are only x shots", meaning I think it's a fantasy to think the number of shots can be quantified, much less limited to a few. ...
Click to expand...
I suppose it might be useful for beginners to offer them a framework that has a relatively limited set of angles, but I agree with you that in the long run strict adherence to such a technically flawed system can only block further improvement. I think that most players who start with a "limited-set fractional-ball aiming" system will not really see the problem because they will soon transition to playing the shots by feel. Or they won't be able to make many shots.

But for those of us who like to do technical analysis of this kind of thing, there is a more or less reasonable answer to "how many different cut angles are there?" I would phrase it a little differently. For the range of shots that you expect to make, how many different cut angles would be enough if you limited yourself to a finite set? A reasonable lower limit to this can be found with only minor hand-waving:

I expect to be able to make a ball off the foot spot into the head pockets. I hope to do this most of the time for cut angles less than 45 degrees. It is easy to figure out the angular size of the target and simply divide that into 45 or 90 degrees if you count cuts to both the left and right. What is the angular size of the target? I think that any aiming system needs to be able to pick out the middle half of a pocket for the target. A system that has a whole pocket's-width of uncertainty is not worth considering. From geometry it's easy to figure out that from the foot spot, the target at the head spot is only 1 degree wide (depending some on how large the pocket is).

This means that if you want to be able to shoot a shot that is 6 diamonds long consistently, your method of aiming must accommodate at least 45 (or 90 if you you count both left and right cuts) different angles.

For what length of shot is three angles on each side good enough? You can more or less divide the 3 by the 45 to find the ratio of shot-length reduction to get a number around half a diamond. That means that any 3-angle system -- if strictly and accurately followed -- is only good for hangers.

I think what real people do with "limited-set fractional-ball aiming" systems is to subconsciously fill in the gaps by feeling -- "that looks a little fuller than half ball."
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Actually, I said it's a fantasy to think "there are only x shots", meaning I think it's a fantasy to think the number of shots can be quantified, much less limited to a few.

Do you have a different view to share?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...


Nope, I share the same 6 points....SPF=randyg
 
Bob Jewett said:
I suppose it might be useful for beginners to offer them a framework that has a relatively limited set of angles, but I agree with you that in the long run strict adherence to such a technically flawed system can only block further improvement. I think that most players who start with a "limited-set fractional-ball aiming" system will not really see the problem because they will soon transition to playing the shots by feel. Or they won't be able to make many shots.

But for those of us who like to do technical analysis of this kind of thing, there is a more or less reasonable answer to "how many different cut angles are there?" I would phrase it a little differently. For the range of shots that you expect to make, how many different cut angles would be enough if you limited yourself to a finite set? A reasonable lower limit to this can be found with only minor hand-waving:[...]
Click to expand...

I don't disagree (notice the Ron Shepardism here?) with your analysis, but I look at it a little differently. Rather than saying there is a desired granulation (hit half a pocket from a few feet away) and figure out how many settings are needed to achieve it, I say each of has our own personal angular precision.

That is, each of us striking the cueball is like a person shooting a special one-bullet-at-a-time shotgun. The shotgun has a certain spread, and if we actually shot a thousand bullets we'd see it clearly. But we're only shooting one bullet at a time. So all we have is an uncertainty for the direction of each bullet. A pro has a narrow spread; a beginner has a wide spread.

The spread is characterized by a standard deviation--a range of angle about the aim angle that includes two thirds of our actual shots. I would say that angular changes in our aim that are smaller than perhaps a quarter of our standard deviation are pretty much meaningless.

For a given shot, then, a pro has many more meaningfully distinct aims than does an amateur. And the actual number changes for each of them when the distance between the cueball and object ball changes.

I think giving students anchors like half ball, quarter ball, three-quarter ball, etc., may be very useful and may facilitate the necessary development of their intuition. But telling students that there are only three angles in pool or that all shots can be made with just a few overlaps or whatever, like HH used to do, is , well, a different story.
 
I think giving students anchors like half ball, quarter ball, three-quarter ball, etc., may be very useful and may facilitate the necessary development of their intuition. But telling students that there are only three angles in pool or that all shots can be made with just a few overlaps or whatever, like HH used to do, is , well, a different story.
Click to expand...

Hmm... Howard Hughes? Hubert Humphrey? Hinglebert Humperdink?

pj
chgo
 
randyg said:
Nope, I share the same 6 points....SPF=randyg
Click to expand...

Oh...AIMING points...I thought you guys were talking about how many shots of bourbon it takes to get you to talk about aiming systems... ;)

Cheers,
RC
 
SpiderWebbComm:
I know some people think there's no such thing as aiming systems that work like the nuts. There are. Incorporating them into a pre-shot routine eliminates guess work, feel and variation.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm one of those people - unless you're talking about aiming *methods* like "ghost ball" and "double overlap", which I don't consider "systems". What system(s) do you have in mind that work so well?

pj
chgo
 
Scott Lee said:
Me too...Einstein was on to something, almost 100 yrs ago! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

Scott,
I think many of us are wondering how Einstein handled those cut shots into the triple shimmed far corner, 8 feet away. Jack Koehler and Bob Jewett are both calculating a very small margin of error on such shots. It's hard to believe that 6 contact points could satisfy that requirement (if that is indeed what you are proposing); but I have an open mind for any explanation that is "provable."
 
Williebetmore said:
Scott,
I think many of us are wondering how Einstein handled those cut shots into the triple shimmed far corner, 8 feet away. Jack Koehler and Bob Jewett are both calculating a very small margin of error on such shots. It's hard to believe that 6 contact points could satisfy that requirement (if that is indeed what you are proposing); but I have an open mind for any explanation that is "provable."
Click to expand...
Crap. I read Koehler's book, and Capelle's book, and even bought Marvin Chin's book regarding aiming. If I had known that there were only 6 cuts in pool, I could have saved myself a bunch of money and time.

So, when I compensate for contact induced throw, do I move to the next point of the 6? Also, I play on really tight (squeeky tight Dufferin tables with long shelf) tables, so I don't get to slop some of those "Hal Houle" cut shots in like on the Diamonds or Brunswicks. 6 point aiming is crap. Learn something practical like ghost ball when you're learning the game, and then transition to the point where experience has programmed the shot into your head. For the tough shots, I use Chin's equal portion method.
 
Forgot to add something. One of the most important concepts I learned was that the centre of the pocket was dependent on the angle at which the ball approached it. Feeney and others discussed the three centres of the pocket (corners), and how your aim and speed determine your chances for success. By generalizing and saying there are only a certain number of shots is bunk. I will say that there are a finite number of reference points on an object ball and a cueball. We tend to use edges and centres and half balls for approximation. However, how many times do you see the shot, and then make a tiny adjustment to overcut or undercut before you stroke the shot? I do it plenty, and I know of others that do it as well.
 
Don...Einstein figured out in 1918 that there are 6 million shots and angles on a 9' pool table. Fortunately only 6 go to a pocket. If you have a repeatable stroke ANY aiming system will work for you. If you don't, NO aiming system will work. For SAM to work you have to believe it will...I do, and IT does! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I guess I'm one of those people - unless you're talking about aiming *methods* like "ghost ball" and "double overlap", which I don't consider "systems". What system(s) do you have in mind that work so well?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Center of the CB to the edge of the OB on every single shot - straight in or super thin, it's all the same. Not my place to talk about in detail as it's not my system or property. All I was saying is a system exists with one aim for everything.... a unified theory if you will.

Common sense and a little research will lead you to the right person. Whether or not that person wants to educate the world is up to that person.
 
An empirical conclusion could be arrived at with a protractor and a mechanical swing arm. Line em up - shoot em in from various distances. Either it works or it doesn't.

One way is to cut the OB fromt the foot spot to the bottom pocket. Another way is to cut fromt he foot spot to the head rail pockets.

Lets see if you assume that a circle (face of a ball) has 360 degrees and we can't cut more than 90 degrees without the use of spin, there are 90 potential positions. Some people say that we don't need all those potential positions. Hmm
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
Forgot to add something. One of the most important concepts I learned was that the centre of the pocket was dependent on the angle at which the ball approached it. [...]
Click to expand...

This is true if you're aiming for the back of the pocket. But If you follow the two rail gutters to where they intersect, then that point is the pocket center from any direction. I think it's useful to put a little sticky on this point on your practice table so that you get used to the view of the correct target from different directions.
 
mikepage said:
This is true if you're aiming for the back of the pocket. But If you follow the two rail gutters to where they intersect, then that point is the pocket center from any direction. I think it's useful to put a little sticky on this point on your practice table so that you get used to the view of the correct target from different directions.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was saying. The centre of the pocket is different depending on the angle approached.
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
That's exactly what I was saying. The centre of the pocket is different depending on the angle approached.
Click to expand...

Actually the center of the pocket never changes, although the angle of approach may change.:)

Jim
 
jimmyg said:
Actually the center of the pocket never changes, although the angle of approach may change.:)

Jim
Click to expand...
When you look down the rail at a corner pocket, mark the centre. Then, move to the adjacent long or short rail, and look down the rail and mark the centre of the pocket. Tell me if they're the same point.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Center of the CB to the edge of the OB on every single shot - straight in or super thin, it's all the same. ...
Click to expand...
Well of course that will work if you don't actually align your cue stick along the line joining the center of the cue ball and the edge of the object ball. As we all know, if you do that and stroke straight, the resulting cut angle is about 28 degrees. A 32-degree cut shot requires you to do something else.

You're talking about a system with a lot of subconscious correction. I don't consider that to be a "system."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top